Page images

In a resolution, unanimously adopted, they declared :

That the Licking County soil conservation district supervisors go on record as opposing the construction of the Dillon Dam as proposed, but are in favor of a new survey being made which will provide a series of smaller dry dams controlling flood conditions and at the same time retaining for agricultural purposes the land which would be wasted by building a permanent pool. And, furthermore we feel that increased emphasis should be placed on encouraging better water control practices on farms in the watershed.

The resolution was signed for the district supervisors by J. F. Morrison, chairman and H. Lee Williams, secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. General Crawford, are you in the position to tell these gentlemen whether or not all alternate proposals were thoroughly investigated before you recommended to the Congress and the committee the proposed dam that has been authorized and for which appropriations have at least been tentatively made, or partially made?



General CRAWFORD. The possibilities of a system of small reservoirs were investigated and reported on in 1934, and these investigations showed that the system of small reservoirs was inferior to the large reservoir plan.

Now, that is evident just from these-
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire there?
The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute.

General CRAWFORD. The drainage area at the Dillon Dam is 748 square miles. Now, the drainage area of all the tributaries above the dam-above Newark—is 527 square miles.

The system of multiple reservoirs above Newark would necessarily control a substantially smaller drainage area than the 527 square miles above Newark, that is, we control less area by going into the multiple system.

The nature of the rainfall is such that the risk of high intensities is greater on small areas than on large areas. For this reason many more dollars must be spent for adequate factors of safety as regards storage capacity and spillway capacity when dealing with reservoirs controlling small drainage basins than when dealing with those controlling large ones.

Twenty reservoirs above Newark, in lieu of Dillon, would increase the cost several times or provide less safety against overtopping of dams and spillway failures of individual structures, and furthermore would be much less certain of controlling all floods.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your question, Mr. McGregor ? Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I hope to be given the opportunity when we send our report in to disagree with the distinguished general, because of the cost and other matters involved.

I want to ask the general this: You have made your survey back a number of years ago. Do you not believe conditions have changed, that you might at least comply with our request for making an additional survey in 1946?

General CRAWFORD. We would have no objection to going into that with the local people there, but the funds for this dam have already been appropriated, $1,000,000 in the deficiency bill

Mr. MCGREGOR. No construction has started yet.

General CRAWFORD. No. Mr. McGregor. None advertised, excepting possibly the relocation of the railroad.

General CRAWFORD. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. We really had in mind that we wanted you and Congressman Griffiths to have this statement so that you could bring in a reply to them in your further statements. We anticipated it.

The probability is that you will go into the matter further with them.

(May 3, 1946)

DILLON DAM-continued

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Herb, we have a good many protests here with respect to the Dillon Dam. We have had hearings on that dam. It is along the Licking River in Ohio. We have had those that have appeared personally. Those landowners whose property is to be acquired for the Dillon Dam have urged that there be a rev dam with a view to substituting a series of smaller dams. As I understand from the previous statements of the Chief of Engineers, and the Assistant Chief of Engineers, this project was authorized in the act of 1938. Am I correct about that?

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And an initial appropriation was made for the beginning of construction in the Deficiency Act of 1945?

Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir. Bids for the first item of work, which is the relocation of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, have been advertised and will be opened on May 7.

The CHAIRMAN. And the project is now under way and there is also provided for this project a further appropriation in the pending civil function bill; is that correct?

Colonel HERB. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee was advised before this project was authorized in the report of the Chief of Engineers that they had, as well as the district engineer, and Board of Rivers and Harbors, considered all other alternate propositions for the building of a series of smaller reservoirs further up the Licking River and further up the tributaries of the Licking River, and those alternatives were rejected because the cost would be in excess of the proposed improvements and, as I recall it, a larger amount of land would be required for the reservoir sites. Is that generally a fair statement of the matter?



Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. Immediately following the hearings on April 18, 1946, before the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives, at which Mr. Ellis and other spokesmen for the Licking Valley Protective Association requested consideration of a multiple-reservoir plan for flood control on the Licking River in lieu of the Dillon Reservoir, the division engineer of the Ohio River division and the district engineer at Huntington were requested to study the modification proposed by local interests and compare the multiple-reservoir plan with the proposed plan for the Dillon Reservoir.

Immediately upon receipt of instructions to make this study, the district engineer at Huntington contacted Mr. Ellis, the engineer for the Licking Valley Protective Association and originator of the plan referred to during the hearings as the Ellis plan, for details pertaining thereto, and Mr. Ellis furnished the district engineer's representative the following data : (a) A plan consisting of 13 reservoirs on tributary streams of the Licking River primarily for flood control and conservation, and numerous pond-type reservoirs primarily for conservation; (6) Mr. Ellis had no map, computations, or pertinent data relating to his plan and stated that the only available map relating to that plan had been filed with the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives, and (c) Mr. Ellis stated that his plan was an idea rather than a fully developed plan.

The major advantages claimed for Mr. Ellis' plan consists of the elimination of railroads and major highway relocations, the elimination of flooding of the towns of Nash port, Toboso, Irville, Pleasant Valley, and Hanover, utilization of less-valuable reseryoir lands than that encountered in the Dillon Reservoir area, and saving in construction and flowage costs by providing protection approximately equal to that afforded by the proposed Dillon Reservoir. In order that Mr. Ellis' plan could be given consideration, this Office borrowed the map which he left with this committee and forwarded it by air mail to the district engineer. Immediately upon receipt of that map the district engineer proceeded with an analysis of Mr. Ellis' plan based on available data, supplemented by field investigation, to determine flowage costs, suitability of dam sites, availability of construction materials, and carrying capacities of the channels below the suggested dam. Mr. Ellis plan consists of 13 reservoirs on 7 tributary streams, controlling a drainage area ranging from 3.8 to 48.6 square miles, and having storage capacities varying from 18 inches to 74 inches of run-off from the controlled areas.

The total storage capacity provided by that plan amounts to 399,300 acre-feet which is equivalent to 44 inches of run-off from the 170.3 square miles of drainage area controlled. The total drainage area of the Licking River amounts to 780 square miles. The flooded area of the 13 reservoirs at spillway elevations totals 14,580 acres. Approximately 303 dwellings would be affected by the proposed reservoirs and some 65 miles of primary and secondary roads would also be affected. The total cost of the plan is estimated at $28,634,000; with annual costs, including operation and maintenance, estimated at $1,404,000, and annual benefits estimated at $174,000, giving a cost to benefit ratio of 1 to 0.1.

In view of the statement made by Mr. Ellis that his plan is undeveloped and due to the evident impracticability of that plan, based on the evidence in the paragraph above, a modified plan was developed which was more feasible from an engineering standpoint than Mr. Ellis' plan. The modified plan incorporates the major features of Mr. Ellis' plan and accomplishes substantially equivalent results. This modified plan consists of seven reservoirs on the same tributary streams considered by Mr. Ellis and controlling drainage areas of 3.8 to 70.1 square miles with flood storage capacity of 7 inches and 9 inches depending on the size of the drainage area. Three inches of conservation storage was proposed at each site. The flood-control capacity of this system of reservoirs amounted to 72,100 acre-feet, and conservation storage was provided having a total capacity of 26,600 acre-feet. The total drainage area controlled by the modified plan is 165.1 square miles. The area flooded by the reservoirs proposed in the modified plan totaled 4,180 acres. Such a system of reservoirs would affect approximately 125 dwellings and 24 miles of primary and secondary roads. The estimated total cost of the modified plan is $12,631,000, and the annual costs for the modified plan including operation and maintenance is estimated at $619,000, and total benefits from such a plan would amount to $174,000, giving a cost to benefit ratio of 1 to 0.3.

Similar data pertaining to the proposed Dillon Reservoir is as follows: Total flood control capacity, 279,000 acre-feet, which is equivalent to 7 inches of run-off over the controlled drainage area of 748 square miles. Such a reservoir as indicated above would control 748 square miles out of a total drainage of 780 square miles in the Licking River watershed. Conservation storage of 15,000 acre-feet is proposed in the Dillon Reservoir. The flooded area at spillway elevation is 10,400 acres. Approximately 300 dwellings and 32 miles of primary and secondary roads would be affected and the relocation of 19 miles of railroad would be required. The total cost of the proposed Dillon project is $10,316,000. The annual cost of the Dillon project, including operation and maintenance, is estimated at $506,000 and annual benefits are estimated at $616,000, giving a cost to benefit ratio of 1 to 1.2.

The estimated reductions in flood stages at Zanesville, Ohio, effected by the Dillon Reservoir and by the multiple-reservoir plan for the flood of 1913 and for the design flood of the official plan of the Muskingum Conservancy District are as follows: Dillon Reservoir :

1913 flood.

Design flood used in Muskingum Conservancy District-Multiple-reservoir plan : 1913 flood

1.2 Design flood used in Muskingum Conservancy District---

0.3 At a conference attended by representatives of the Licking Valley Protective Association, the Muskingum Conservancy District, the city of Zanesville, and the Huntington District office held in Zanesville on 25 April, 1946, and which was attended by approximately 30 persons, it was pointed out that multiple-reservoir plans for the Licking River had been considered in three additional studies since the original study made in 1938. At that meeting pertinent features of the three plans were explained and discussed, and representatives of the Licking Valley Protective Association protested that sufficient time had not been taken to properly develop Mr. Ellis' plan and that the costs were excessive. Other local interests, however, favored construction of the Dillon Dam and stressed the water supply possibilities for the city of Zanesville which could be developed in connection with the Dillon Dam.

The recent study of the district engineer substantiates previous studies in this watershed that a multiple-reservoir system as proposed by Mr. Ellis or the modification of that plan, would not equal or constitute a satisfactory substitute for the Dillon Reservoir in that neither of the plans considered would control more than about 25 percent of the drainage area controlled by the Dillon Reservoir, nor

Reduction (feet)

4 1.8

would they provide more than approximately 25 percent of the flood control benefits provided by the Dillon Reservoir. These studies also show that the multiple-reservoir plan would be more expensive to construct and operate; they also show that any modifying plan which contemplates a smaller dam at the Dillon site with additional or supplementary small reservoirs on tributaries above Dillon could not provide an economically justified project, due to the fact that railway relocations which represent a major item of cost for the Dillon Reservoir would not be eliminated nor would the flooding of the affected communities be eliminated except in the case of Irville, containing approximately 35 dwellings.

The numerous studies made by the district engineer have all shown that no further plan can be developed which will provide a more favorable project than the proposed Dillon Reservoir.

The CHAIRMAN. In this connection we have received several telegrams and letters, which I will ask the clerk to insert at the proper point of the hearings. I believe that concludes the hearing on the Dillon Dam proposition.

(April 18, 1946)



TION DISTRICT, CHATTANOOGA, TENN. Mr. FULLER. My name is M. Z. L. Fuller, Chattanooga, Tenn. I am commissioner of flood protection district, a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee.

The CHAIRMAN. There was approved in the Flood Control Act of 1941 a project for the protection of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Ross

, Mr. FULLER. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And you advocated that project. What is your proposal at the present time?

Mr. FULLER. The authorization for the Chattanooga, Tenn., and Rossville, Ga., projects tied the two projects together. A certain group sponsored the Georgia section of it and we sponsored the Tennessee section. Now it develops that they expect the whole Tennessee section to pay for the cost of the right-of-way and damages, and so forth, and we cannot issue our bonds. The Army engineers made a survey. They sent a surveying crew and explored the foundations for the levees. We paid all the damages created by the engineers. Before they could complete their detailed plans and furnish us with a list of rights-of-way needed the water came on.

The CHAIRMAN. The work was abandoned ?
Mr. FULLER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What you are doing here is advocating an amendment to the act to require what?

Mr. FULLER. To separate the two projects. One is in Tennessee and one is in Georgia. We cannot issue bonds on benefits accruing to people in Tennessee to pay for the rights-of-way and the damages of Army engineers to take over and maintain works in Georgia. And likewise Rossville, Ga., cannot come over in our State and take care of their section of it.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »